Comments for Hist361EMEnghttps://hist361emeng.wordpress.com
Studying Online to Ace the ClassTue, 03 Apr 2012 04:55:43 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.com/Comment on Question One by Joshua Torreshttps://hist361emeng.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/question-one-3/#comment-207
Tue, 03 Apr 2012 04:55:43 +0000http://hist361emeng.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/question-one-3/#comment-207I agree that Elizabeth was a calculated politician and the connection between her and Henry VII. Elizabeth, like Henry VII, received the country in a time of political turmoil. Henry reacted by probing the allegiances of nobles after the Battle of Bosworth in 1485 and Elizabeth followed suit with her courtiers seeking a middle religious ground. In addition, they both had rivals to the throne. Henry survived the ordeal with Perkin Warbeck and Elizabeth with MQS. Although, differences arise in the reigns by the financial situation that both monarchs left behind. While they both attempted to stay out of financial breaking war, Henry VII left Henry VIII in prime monetary value and Elizabeth left James inheriting debt.
]]>Comment on Question One by Joshua Torreshttps://hist361emeng.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/question-one-3/#comment-206
Tue, 03 Apr 2012 04:44:54 +0000http://hist361emeng.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/question-one-3/#comment-206I view Queen Elizabeth I as a smart and calculating politician. Elizabeth coming directly off of the reign of her half sister Mary had to overcome to major challenges which were intertwined: Catholicism and the Spanish threat. Mary, the devout catholic that she was, reinstated the Pope in England and all of the Catholic practices abandoned over the Reformation outside of monastic lands. Elizabeth, being a protestant herself, turned these practices around. She restored the monarch as Supreme Governor and edited the Prayer books and practices to a Protestant feel. This created tension with her and Catholics, a tension that culminated with the Revolt of the Northern Earls in 1569. This revolt, led by the earls of Northumberland and Westmorland was a Catholic movement backed by the Pope in Rome to removed Elizabeth from the throne. Unfortunately for the rebels, the papal decree did not reach England until after they were already thwarted and the revolution dead. Secondly, the Spanish threat of Philip II of Spain attempting to invade England and return Catholicism to England. This threat materialized in the Spanish Armanda of 1558. Philip promised that once the Armanda landed, the English Catholics would rejoice and join arms with him to restore the faith to England.
Elizabeth carefully maneuvered around both instances. She appeased internal religious squabbles by accommodating both the liberals and conservatives. She did this by creating loose religious laws that allowed Protestants to worship openly and Catholics to still secretly congregate in their homes by placing light fines on missing mass. Elizabeth also bided her time with the Spanish threat, not overeating and entering in to war prematurely. Because of this, she was able to build a solid domestic foundation that allowed her to overcome the Spanish once the armada hit. Elizabeth did benefit from the lack of stability of the reigns of both Edward and Mary. Coming off of the cruelty seen by the executions under Mary, Elizabeth was seen as caring. In addition, as her reign endured time, she was seen as powerful simply because she was the only monarch known to around half of the population that was too young to remember Mary or Edward.
]]>Comment on Question Two by Joshua Torreshttps://hist361emeng.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/question-two-2-2/#comment-205
Tue, 03 Apr 2012 04:15:16 +0000http://hist361emeng.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/question-two-2/#comment-205I agree with this assessment. We do not always think of the time difference between reigns and the potential possibilities lost because of the death of a monarch. Elizabeth’s reign does seem more substantial because she was, out of the three, the most stable. Elizabeth did not suffer from phantom pregnancies or fatal illnesses during the prime of her reign that allowed her rule to be firm. Elizabeth also ruled by herself, while Edward had his advisors, Summerset and Northumberland and Mary had King Philip of Spain.
]]>Comment on Question Two by Joshua Torreshttps://hist361emeng.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/question-two-2-2/#comment-204
Tue, 03 Apr 2012 04:09:34 +0000http://hist361emeng.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/question-two-2/#comment-204A parallel that existed between Edward VI, Mary I, and Elizabeth I was religion. Religious controversy existed and flourished under all three Tudors. Edward took his father’s religion, one that he received tutoring on since childhood and added his own Book of Prayers and the Act of Uniformity of 1549. Mary totally contradicted his reign with her devotion to Catholicism and more importantly an allegiance to the Pope. Mary’s reattachment to Rome and the installment of the Heresy Acts of 1554 embodied her return to Catholicism. Elizabeth can be viewed as the middle road between the two extremes. Elizabeth did turn the country back to Protestantism, but it was a milder version of the religion that still held onto some Catholic images, such as the retaining of priestly vestments.
A reason that I choose religion over other aspects is that the reign of Edward was primarily run by his advisors, Summerset and Northumberland. Because of this I feel that his reign didn’t have as much Tudor influence as that of aspiring nobles. This contrasted with the strong personalities of Mary and the cunning of Elizabeth.
]]>Comment on Question Three by Joshua Torreshttps://hist361emeng.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/question-three-3/#comment-203
Tue, 03 Apr 2012 03:39:19 +0000http://hist361emeng.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/question-three-3/#comment-203I like how you illustrate the differences in the reigns of Elizabeth and James. Although I think it is important to add why these differences came to be. Elizabeth, attempting to reconcile the country from the persecutions of the Marian regime, strove for a middle religious ground. Elizabeth also played off her felinity to appeal to English cavalry to persuade Parliament into doing her bidding. James entered as a foreigner and was in a way forced to spend a hefty budget in order to win both favor and confidence from the English nobility.
]]>Comment on Question Three by Joshua Torreshttps://hist361emeng.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/question-three-3/#comment-202
Tue, 03 Apr 2012 03:28:19 +0000http://hist361emeng.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/question-three-3/#comment-202I found that the reigns of Queen Elizabeth I and King James I were similar reigns in the sense that they were both monarchs trying to prove themselves to England. Elizabeth, a woman ruling in a world founded on patriarchal system and James, an alien to England, entering the country trying to win over the people’s confidence. Especially, in their relationship with Parliament, through their differences there are similarities. Elizabeth as a woman, often had to use her feminine traits to persuade Parliament to her favor, such as her acts of Supremacy and her foreign diplomatic relations which typically included teasing suitors to insure alliances. Similarly, James felt a pressure to influence Parliament. James, becoming king after two successive queens felt the need to show his masculinity. He often had long opening speeches where James hammered his points and attempted to ensure no margin for error. Unfortunately, this tactic ultimately backfired and James feuded with Parliament by not calling them into session for many years. In all, both James and Elizabeth found themselves a minority attempting to learn English society on the fly and while holding its most important office.
]]>Comment on Question Three by Jocelyn Pillerhttps://hist361emeng.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/question-three-3/#comment-201
Tue, 03 Apr 2012 02:48:49 +0000http://hist361emeng.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/question-three-3/#comment-201The fact that Elizabeth never played favorites is one thing i admire about her ruling. Unlike previous monarchs and unlike James, with out the favoring of one person/group over another she prevented much argument and disruptions from within. Although there were disagreements, there were never any prevalent underhanded issues she had to deal with inside her own court. This allowed her “co-rulers” along with herself to deal with the situations of civilians rather than be caught up in their own drama.
]]>Comment on Question Two by Jocelyn Pillerhttps://hist361emeng.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/question-two-2-2/#comment-200
Tue, 03 Apr 2012 02:42:18 +0000http://hist361emeng.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/question-two-2/#comment-200I believe that the monarch didn’t have quite as much power as they thought in picking a successor. This is obvious in the succession of Mary and Elizabeth. Both of these ladies gained the throne as if by luck. Edward got rid of HVIII heir line and replaced with with his own, however his own heir was only able to maintain the throne for 9 days.

The power of the ruler lies in how much power said person can muster up. It’s ultimately the people that decide their ruler (even if sometimes their decision is misguided).

]]>Comment on Question One by Jocelyn Pillerhttps://hist361emeng.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/question-one-3/#comment-199
Tue, 03 Apr 2012 02:33:05 +0000http://hist361emeng.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/question-one-3/#comment-199As i stated in an earlier reply to a reply post, “Was Elizabeth a good ruler or was she just a “model monarch”, someone to be looked at and adored while society just coasted?”

There are not many cases of Queen Elizabeth advancing the English society, more examples of just keeping it at bay until an uproar of some sort and/or a decision needed to be made.

She did not quite choose a religion for England, she basically said here let just take Catholicism on one and and Protestantism on the other and *clap* we have a religious settlement. She was not advancing her society, she was only keeping it at bay from many uprisings. Another example of her inaction was keeping Mary alive. She could have chosen to let Mary go or to execute her. Instead she flirted with that decision for years until finally her Council made it for her.

Are these qualities of a smart politician or a cheap monarch? In all honesty, depending on how you look at it, it can be either. By keeping everything at bay, she avoided much conflict and disruption. However, by her inaction, the government of England didn’t prosper; it was more or less stagnant.

At this time, was it better to lead a stable government that lacked advance or might it have been better to take a stand and deal with the consequences?

]]>Comment on Question Three by Jocelyn Pillerhttps://hist361emeng.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/question-three-3/#comment-198
Tue, 03 Apr 2012 02:23:16 +0000http://hist361emeng.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/question-three-3/#comment-198Elizabeth and James display many similarities in their ruling, like the fact that they were both brought in almost by chance. Elizabeth would not have made it had Mary not died early and James would not have made it had Elizabeth not been Queen. They also both had to deal with plots against their reigns. Because these rulers were not easily distinguished heirs, not all of the people accepted their reigning.

However, they were not all that similar in the way they ruled. Whereas Elizabeth was laid back and passive aggressive, James thought he should be more assertive than the previous female rulers. He also believed in the Divine Right of Kings, aka he was only accountable to God whereas Elizabeth ruled as if the people were who she was accountable for. Also he was not as conservative as Elizabeth, using the monarchs money to win the popularity of important people thus making the monarchs debt even larger.

To make back some of the money, he imposed impositions to regulate commerce and bring in lots of money. Parliament did not agree to this so essentially he was stealing from the people; taxation without consent. Thus he was disliked by the other half of the ruling power of England.

Also he was slightly conceited by naming himself King of Great Britain… Queen Elizabeth was never that conceited.